|
Cernunnous
|
Posted - 29 July 2010 09:33
There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
He struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.
Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood,
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good.
He sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.
I believe I've passed the age of consciousness & righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view,
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right, ohhhhh
And there's always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes,
He can't understand why his heart always breaks.
His honor is pure and his courage as well,
He's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell!
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man.
And there's always a place for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
He struggles and bleeds ‘til he hangs on the cross
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Will you stop shouting and stamping your little feet for a minute?
I'm not in denial about anything. I'm trusting my own judgement and doing my bit for the environment in my own way, and I don't like being shouted at about it by left wing tedes, politicians or musicians.
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
are you this aggressive in real life?
|
|
arbiter of good taste
|
Where is the same good hard evidence (not models) to show its our fault and we can actually do something about it?
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Furthermore, I'd like to point out:
*The evidence you present can always be argued against, and while there is plenty of evidence to show man is responsible for climate change, there is also plenty of evidence to show that he isn't. Yet you have an unshakable faith in one side of the argument.
*Anybody who disagrees with you is immediately wrong, and this is not subject to debate or argument. They are simply deniers and unbelievers
*Nearly every day you seem to make some sort of post spreading the word of your beliefs about climate change.
Do you see what I'm getting at, Trade-Oswald?
|
|
RPG
|
trade-off what satisfaction do you get from starting w4nk threads that you know people won't agree with and then shouting at every one... we know you're left wing.. you dont need to constantly scream about it..
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Nobody (except possibly Cuba) follows you around the board, T-o.
Far be it from me to say you've got a vastly inflated sense of self-importance... but you really have.
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
------------------------------------>
valium sale
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
i'm more concerned about your mental health, tis true
|
|
The Goose
|
Starting threads that you know people won't agree with?
Eh?
He just posted some pretty strong evidence. And the only response he gets from the usual suspects is to ignore that evidence and dig into the man.
He is right, some people are just in denial about this issue. This isn't a question of politics. It's a science question. Politics only comes into play when we ask what we're going to do about it but some people never seem to get to that discussion because they're too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and hoping it will all go away.
|
|
markgriffith
|
I have a fondness for the mankind-inadvertently-saves-planet-from-imminent-ice-age story, I must admit.
|
|
The Goose
|
Inadvertently? What by accidently leaving on an electric heater overnight?
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
The Goose Posted - 29 July 2010 10:12 Report as offensive Starting threads that you know people won't agree with?
Eh?
He just posted some pretty strong evidence. And the only response he gets from the usual suspects is to ignore that evidence and dig into the man.
He is right, some people are just in denial about this issue. This isn't a question of politics. It's a science question. Politics only comes into play when we ask what we're going to do about it but some people never seem to get to that discussion because they're too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and hoping it will all go away
yesterday you were saying that individuals stopping dangerous activity isn't a solution. now you're saying that if we comment on trade-off's tendency to act like a tvvat, we're sticking our fingers in our ears and hoping it will all go away. i'm confused about what you expect anyone to actually do. is it just a question of voting for the green party and then driving home from the voting station in my range rover, or what? should we all just come on rof and sit in the virtual naughty corner every time trade-off wants to lash out or may we exercise some discretion as to what to post about him?
|
|
Dudley Duoflush
|
I misread this thread title. thought it was something about hosiery.
as you were.
|
|
The Goose
|
You're an obtuse little on aren't you, Bonehead. Are you purposefully misunderstanding what I say?
My point yesterday was that if a few hardcore committed individuals in the west are the only ones that make changes to their life, then climate change will not be averted. Not sure what is controversial about that statement. Maybe you'd like to spell it out instead of making odd oblique comments.
Yes, it needs individual action. It also needs government action. It definitely needs global action. It's not about voting for the Green Party, necessarily. All of the main parties are signed up to solving this problem. You see it is mainstream now and only fringe loons like yourself are pretending the problem doesn't exist.
What you seem to confuse is the difference between the scientific evidence for the existence of manmade climate change and the solutions which can solve this problem. There is absolutely no conflict between, on the one hand stating that the actions of a few individuals won't solve the problem, and on the other hand, pointing and laughing at those pretending there is no problem at all.
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
they were your words m8. don't start name calling just because i mentioned them today
|
|
The Goose
|
And once again, you have decided to avoid actually engaging with the point just to make slightly snide comments that avoid the actual discussion. Well done.
Please explain the conflict that you see in my position.
|
|
markgriffith
|
Exactly, Goose. Leaving the heater on overnight.
Or letting some CO2 build up, if that's enough.
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Are you making a list of 'deniers' for when the Revolution comes?
|
|
The Goose
|
Yeah, of course they COULD argue a strong case against but they just CHOOSE not to.
Heh.
Guys, if there is a strong case against, please please please let us have it because you could win a Nobel here. I would LOVE to be able to say I'd got this one wrong and that we could all just forget about this issue.
|
|
The Goose
|
Cernunnous
Posted - 29 July 2010 11:11 Report as offensive
Are you making a list of 'deniers' for when the Revolution comes?
Cernunnous, that appears to be the sort of action that deniers get involved in. The number of instances of death threats against scientists peacefully going about their business is quite disturbing.
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Goose - and of course the left is squeaky clean in that regard...
|
|
Cernunnous
|
You never did reveal what it is you do for fun, you know.
|
|
Posh Totty
|
Heh @ Cernunnous at 09:48.
Trade Off always reminds me of one of the characters in Greene's 'The Power and the Glory':
The lieutenant is the chief adversary of the priest. He hates the church because he thinks it is corrupt, and he pursues the priest ruthlessly. He takes hostages from the villages and kills them when he feels it is necessary. However, the lieutenant is also idealistic, and believes in radical social reform that would end poverty and provide education for everyone.
(Quote from Wiki, as ever.)
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Bad move, Totty - you're going on The List...
|
|
The Goose
|
It's amusing that only one person has made any appeal to facts on this thread and he is the one being labelled as arguing from faith and belief.
You probably think you are being clever.
|
|
jdizzle
|
How can global warming be true when it is the middle of summer and it is pretty chilly outside now. And I'm sure summers used to be hotter in the old days because you never see white   anymore and that is because the summers aren't as hot as they used to be. |
|
The Goose
|
Yes, mankind should never ever try to tame nature. we should get rid of all medicine and hydroelectricity and should just live in caves feeding on berries. Probably best to steer clear of even making a fire to keep warm. Wouldn't want to claim that we could tame that fire. It's all far too powerful.
*pulls joey face*
|
|
Posh Totty
|
You may be able to blame the gods (if you believe in one or many) for breaking down the earth then.
ARRRGGGGGHHHHH!!! DON'T START HIM OFF ON THIS ONE.
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Cernunnous Posted - 29 July 2010 09:45
Will you stop shouting and stamping your little feet for a minute?
I'm not in denial about anything. I'm trusting my own judgement and doing my bit for the environment in my own way, and I don't like being shouted at about it by left wing tedes, politicians or musicians.
There are arguments for and against man's influence on climate change. I am personally very sceptical of the argument - and the evidence - that man is responsible. This is not anything to do with anything Cuba's posted, or anything Monckton's said (I still haven't read anything he's written, so don't accuse me of "lapping it up like a moron").
I don't like waste; I don't like how our society has headed towards an "Ending is better than Mending" attitude, and how our consumption - and the waste associated with it - has balooned. I believe in re-using things before just tossing them out.
But I don't believe that recycling - with current technology - works. I simply don't believe it saves energy or protects the environment. I also don't believe that being taxed to the eyeballs for owning a car helps the environment or the community.
You may disagree with that last paragraph, but I challenge you to find fault with the preceeding one.
|
|
Posh Totty
|
Trade Off - I haven't denied anything. You don't know what my opinion on the matter is.
|
|
bookem
|
actually, they ARE having problems working out exactly where all the millions of gallons of oil has got to...
|
|
bookem
|
yeah totty! cut and paste something then swear a lot.
That's how you do "substantive" you fvking retard.
|
|
Posh Totty
|
Trade Off - i can tell that you have a stock set of angry little dogmatic retorts that you copy and paste in response to every post challenging you, regardless of whether you make sense or not.
|
|
Posh Totty
|
Refudiate - exactly.
|
|
The Goose
|
Cern, two arguments:
1. Science - why are you sceptical? What do you think is causing warming, as it is not part of a recognised regular cycle and we are not even close to finding an alternative mechanism that could explain it.
2. Politics - Car use has been taxed heavily in the UK since long before climate change became an issue. Even if we ignored climate change, I don't think this would change. I don't think car use is going to be tackled until a decent biofuel (algae not food crops) or electric option is cheaply and freely available. Also, don't understand your stance on recycling - on the one hand you say you don't like the way we throw things away without reusing them and yet you don't believe in recycling. Again, I personally think recycling is a drop in the ocean. Our key solutions are going to have to be increases in energy efficiency, lowering energy use and big ticket items like heating and power generation.
|
|
Cernunnous
|
*always cracks me up when you guys use that term
You actually laugh?!
|
|
bookem
|
heh
ok
|
|
Posh Totty
|
Trade Off - you're doing it again ...
|
|
The Goose
|
See, I try to engage in the arguments but you spackers would rather just throw insults at trade-off.
|
|
bookem
|
why not? he's a figure of amusement on an internet chat board.
|
|
Le Chiffre
|
Goodness, this thread has generated an awful lot of heat. I reckon it must be those malfunctioning sunspots and/or the FSM just warming his bathwater...or is there another explanation...
|
|
bookem
|
oh dear. you misunderstand. I care not a jot what you "feel".
i find you a comdey figure. that's all i was saying.
You, of course, don't care about that. And that's as it should be.
|
|
bookem
|
Volcano activity, Chiffre. That's what it is.
ALl the CO2 they spew into the air and whatnot.
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Nobody needs to read your original post, Trade-off. All your posts say the same thing:
1) Copied and pasted article claiming that climate change is real and it's definitely caused by man.
2) "Got fvck all substantive to say on this? Or are you deniers still bumming Monckton?"
Do you spend all your time looking for articles with which to bait Cuba?
|
|
The Goose
|
Fine, just don't try and take the higher moral ground because tedeing is something you clearly do at a competitive level.
|
|
Le Chiffre
|
Volcanos can post on the interweb!?
Now that IS cool science...
|
|
The Goose
|
Yeah, Cern, trade-off is clearly right about you.
This was headline news in pretty much all of the mainstream media. The evidence is getting stronger and stronger. It's a very serious issue but feel free to continue your angry protestations about good arguments against, which miraculously can never be articulated.
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
The Goose Posted - 29 July 2010 10:43 Report as offensive And once again, you have decided to avoid actually engaging with the point just to make slightly snide comments that avoid the actual discussion. Well done
erm, as you were the first to use snide comments and name calling to hide the fact that you're changing your story from yesterday, it's a bit rich to expect me to just roll over like your little puppy- . heh. i bet you're the kind of lawyer that writes to clients one day, then sends them a clarification letter the next, letting them know that they shouldn't take your first opinion literally because what you said isn't what you meant
|
|
Cernunnous
|
Goose, where have I got angry on this thread, exactly?
I'd rather do my bit for my immediate surroundings and my local environment, if it's all the same to you. Might seem insular and parochial, but it's better than nothing.
Think of it this way: Figuratively speaking, I'm clearing the local pond and picking up litter. You and Trade-off are raising money for a rainforest charity. Different ways of doing the same thing.
|
|
The Goose
|
Erm, in what way did I change my story?
Day 1: If a small number of people change their behaviour, problems relating to climate change will not be solved.
Day 2: I don't understand why people deny the existence of climate change without even addressing the arguments but prefer to stick their heads in the sand and throw insults.
How are these in conflict? Again, you have done nothing but post snide comments. Try putting together a coherent argument and I might have some idea what you are banging on about.
|
|
Rambling Peasant
|
Heh! at the thought of taking the Met Office's word for it. This is an organisation that consistently fails to predict the weather 1-3 DAYS ahead. Am I seriously supposed to take it on faith when it makes prophesies 1-3 DECADES ahead?
They can't even interpret the satellite picture properly FFS.
|
|
bookem
|
"sounds like someone's a fan of plimer's bogus claims "
oh dear. does it?
|
|
The Goose
|
That was to Fat & Bones, obviously.
Cern, the whole thread seems angry to me. Still, nothing wrong with your personal practical approach. I am certainly not critical of that at all. On a non-practical level, I am just interested in the climate change debate and the ways in which people argue their positions. It's like arguing about anything, really, but it is interesting to me because of the nature of evidence for and against and the ways in which that evidence is used to entrench positions already held.
|
|
The Goose
|
"Heh! at the thought of taking the Met Office's word for it. This is an organisation that consistently fails to predict the weather 1-3 DAYS ahead. Am I seriously supposed to take it on faith when it makes prophesies 1-3 DECADES ahead?"
Goodness me. *facepalm*
|
|
Rambling Peasant
|
Hmm. Yes. Satellite measurements. Put into a model that says there will be heavy rain where I am today. In fact there is bright sunshine.
The same model that they use to predict climate change or so I have read.
|
|
The Goose
|
*double facepalm*
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
the telegraph article in trade-off's first post is interesting. dr stott insists that we ignore short term variations and instead points to 'decades' being warmer than previous 'decades'. how many decades is he talking about? not hundreds, not dozens, not tens of decades. no sir, not even several decades. for you sir, three decades only. nothing short term about that, oh no.
|
|
Rambling Peasant
|
Meanwhile in the Pacific, far from shrinking as predicted by advocates of warming, rising oceans, doom, etc. pacific atolls have in fact grown over the last few decades.
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
and of course, it's 'glaringly obvious' that it's all man's fault. glaringly.
as an exercise in rhetoric, it's quite awful
|
|
The Goose
|
Perhaps you'd also like to explain:
1. why there is also stratospheric cooling, which would be consistent with the climate change model but not much else; and
2. what is the relevance atoll growth.
Cheers.
|
|
Cernunnous
|
evidence and your worldview aren't exactly happy bedfellows are they.
You're rather patronising, aren't you?
Care to comment on my post of 12.38?
|
|
markgriffith
|
Warning: neutral question
Can anyone remind me roughly what the human-caused fossil-fuel-burning-caused CO2 percentage is out of total CO2?
Sincere question. I assume we add to CO2 as humans, simply by there being six billion of us instead of one billion as it was in 1600 or so, but I also assume this is small compared to our burning fossil fuels? There must be a rough estimate of the role of coal-burning/car-exhaust/etc-etc CO2 as a percentage of all the CO2 already in the atmosphere and being added each year?
|
|
The Goose
|
Oh look, due to a completely different mechanism, atolls have experienced some growth, therefore we can ignore:
1. Land based air temperature increases;
2. Sea surface temperature increases;
3. Marine air temperature increases;
4. Ocean heat increases;
5. Humidity increases;
6. Sea level increases;
7. Tropospheric temperature increases;
8. Arctic sea ice decreases;
9. Glacier retreat; and
10. Decreases in northern hemisphere spring snow cover.
Come to think of it, if I leave my fridge door open, my kitchen gets a bit colder - therefore global warming must be complete nonsense.
Seriously, some of the arguments you guys pull out are embarrassing.
|
|
markgriffith
|
No rush with my question. I thought someone - for or against - might have the number at their fingertips.
|
|
jdizzle
|
I reckon we could hit double-tun on this if we get a bit of 'does god exist' banter going on. He doesn't by the way.
|
|
The Goose
|
Even Cuba was in favour of cap and trade yesterday, Supes.
As long as business decided to unilaterally impose this cost on itself.....
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
trade-off despises you Posted - 29 July 2010 13:08 Report as offensive well fat and bones, lets hear your alternative explanation for the warming. at over 100 posts in, its about time a denier put forward some crap theory.
oh and in case you missed it, we've done 'its the sun' above. not very helpful as its been cooling the last few decades but don't let that stop you parroting one of the usual tired denier cliches
i wouldn't be surprised if it's man made. the problem i have with you is that you keep posting these articles from newspapers, skeptical science etc, lapping them up without reading them very closely and then behaving like the runt of the litter on the board. i'd take you more seriously if you posted the actual science. perhaps then, if you bothered putting in the time to develop some skill in a subject, you'd be less likely to be all shouty. i'm afraid you're conforming to the stereotype of people who know nothing having to cover up their ignorance by being all bolshy.
prove me wrong why don't you
|
|
The Goose
|
F&B, have you had a think about why you believe there is conflict between my two positions?
I'd be interested to hear it.
|
|
markgriffith
|
Aha, thank you, trade-off.
So overall a low percentage {man-made CO2 of total CO2}, but once natural balancing taken into account, a big percentage of the remainder which seems to be building up fast / or at least overwhelming natural CO2 absorption sinks hence accumulating.
Got you.
I might click through to the paper later this afternoon once I have ticked through some points on my to-do list, like get some exercise, work for a client, blah blah.
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
and trade-off proves my point precisely
|
|
The Goose
|
By posting a useful response to mark with evidence, coherence and a backup scientific paper reference.
Ooh, you cad trade-off. That's just not fair!
|
|
markgriffith
|
Before I do anything useful with the next hour, I wonder what percentage of the human percentage of bad atmosphere stuff comes from tyre-dump fires? I doubt we have figures for that.
Esoteric knowledge from my trade-journal deep past, but tyre-dump fires are in effect virtually impossible to put out. In the US there are usually a couple of fires at large tyre dumps at any one time that have burned for one, two, three years continuously - the Kovach Tire Report used to carry small items on these: if it exists any more.
Of course, this problem might have been solved in the last five years with those power stations that burn old tyres, or chop them up into a kind of granular meal for laying roads. Years ago I got offered - totally out of the blue - a job as the financial director for one of those tyre-recycling power stations. Sad & funny episode.
But I digress.
|
|
The Goose
|
Hmongy, that graph seems to neatly show the natural variation caused by precession. Would be interesting to know what date year zero is - as it would appear that we should be on a downward slope, instead of experiencing ever increasing temperatures.....
|
|
The Goose
|
Esoteric digression is most definitely your strong point, Mark....
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
and again
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
and again
|
|
The Goose
|
You going to respond to my earlier question, F & B?
It shouldn't be hard - you made a big noise about how I was contradicting myself, so you must know what you meant. I genuinely don't see the contradiction.
|
|
The Goose
|
Ah, well. Let's just agree that you were mistaken then, eh?
|
|
Fat and Bones
|
no let's not. i'll have to do it later and find the posts. perhaps unlike trade-off, i have clients giving me instructions. soz
|
|
markgriffith
|
I try to play to my strengths, Goose. The tyre-recycling power station that never happened would have had a managing director rejoicing in the name  , in case you wondered. Ah, happy days. |
|
markgriffith
|
As in... B.oo B.oo.
Forgot about the pesky little icons.
|
|
markgriffith
|
I killed a global-warming thread? I bored you all into silence by talking about tyres?
|